I always think of that great line from Norman Lear’s brilliant and hilarious series, Fernwood Tonight. In the show, Susan Cloud, the owner of the Butterfly Deli and a convert to vegetarianism, had one credo:

I don’t like to eat anything that under different circumstances might eat me. Except hamburgers, Because the human body requires burgers. – Susan Cloud, Fernwood Tonight.

Which comes to mind reading about the activists who are on a hunger strike ... until they get really hungry.

Trump is insisting on a wall he won’t need if he continues—and increases—immigration enforcement:

For decades, apologists for mass illegal immigration have been telling us that a) illegal immigration isn’t really a problem, and b) that it an uncontrollable phenomenon in any event. Attempting to stop mass illegal immigration would be an expensive and futile effort.

It turns out that the so-called experts were wrong. In just the second full month of the Trump presidency, the number of people apprehended attempting to enter the United States illegally plummeted to 17-year lows. Moreover, the “surge” of illegal migration from Central America of unaccompanied minors (UAMs) and families with children suddenly stopped surging. As recently as December (not coincidentally, the last full month of the Obama presidency), more than 7,000 UAMs arrived at our southern border. By March, that number had dwindled to just 1,914. Likewise, the flood of 16,139 people arriving in family units in December was reduced to a trickle – just 1,043 people in March – a decline of 93 percent.

Even more remarkably, these dramatic declines in the number of people attempting to cross our border transpired before the first dime has been expended on construction of Trump’s “big beautiful wall,” and before the first of the administration’s requested 5,000 new Border Patrol agents was hired, much less trained and deployed to the front lines.

Illegal immigration has always been a manageable problem. Illegal immigrants are rational people who respond rationally to the signals we send. When our policies convey the sense that we are not serious about enforcing our immigration laws (which has largely been the case for decades), they behave accordingly. Just the mere indication on the part of the Trump administration that they intend to enforce our laws has been sufficient to discourage many people from even attempting to come here illegally.

The president has also taken concrete actions to demonstrate that he is serious about deterring illegal immigration. Among other steps, he has ended the catch-and-release policy of the Obama administration, under which people arriving at the border were permitted to enter the country pending a hearing, often years in the future. The Trump administration, while continuing to prioritize the removal of criminal aliens, has made it clear that it will not exempt all other immigration lawbreakers from deportation.

Now it is up to Congress to reinforce these positive results with long overdue legislative reforms. In addition to funding the president’s security barrier (which Congress authorized in 2007) and additional enforcement personnel, lawmakers must address the key pull factors of illegal immigration, most notably the availability of jobs to illegal aliens.

Workers at a Chinese factory used by the company that makes clothing for Ivanka’s eponymous clothing line worked nearly 60 hours a week to earn wages of little more than $62 a week, according to a factory audit. Drew Harwell reports: “The factory’s 80 workers knit clothes for the contractor, G-III Apparel Group, which has held the exclusive license to make the Ivanka Trump brand’s $158 dresses, $79 blouses and other clothes since 2012.

Mind you, I have no problem with paying these workers these wages. This is what has lifted a billion people around the globe out of abject poverty in recent decades. What bothers me is the stupidity and hypocrisy of policies that insulate selected American workers from international competition at the expense of both impoverished foreign workers and American consumers.

Worried the term “female genital mutilation” might sharpen the divide between those who oppose brutally cutting away a little girl’s genitalia to deprive her of sexual pleasure and those who practice the “rite,” one New York Times editor instead refers to the ritual as “genital cutting.”

“There’s a gulf between the Western (and some African) advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite, and I felt the language used widened that chasm,” NYT science and health editor Celia Dugger explained Friday. She also said the widely used term (FGM) is “culturally loaded” in the explanation, which came as a result of inquiries from The Daily Caller News Foundation regarding a reporter’s decision to use the term “cutting” in a recent story about a doctor in Michigan.

These monsters are hurting girls. Hurt them back until they stop. If that creates a “gulf,” too bad.

Monday, 24 April 2017

About as much as you’d expect, as revealed by his take on shutting down an Ann Coulter speech:

Dean cites three court cases, and he mischaracterizes the decisions in all of them. The first case he references, Snyder v. Phelps, was an 8 to 1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church’s freedom to chant the horrible slogans and hold up the horrible banners it favors at a military funeral. If the church is free to protest at a military funeral, it makes no sense to argue that Ann Coulter is not free to give a speech at Berkeley. Dean is perhaps unknowingly citing a case that argues the reverse of his position.

The second case Dean cites, Virginia v. Black, struck down a state law that deemed cross-burning a prima facie attempt at intimidation. The decision was complicated, with multiple justices concurring in part and dissenting in part, but its upshot was that if prosecutors wanted to charge someone with a crime for burning a cross, they had to prove that the cross-burner intended his action as a threat.

“Criminal threats”, “intimidation” and criminal harassment are already crimes on the books in many states. If Ann Coulter explicitly threatens an individual in her speech, she can be charged with a crime for that. But whatever her flaws, Coulter is unlikely to make an explicit incitement to violence in a speech at Berkeley.

The third case Dean cites, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, has come up a bit more frequently as of late. Eugene Volokh points out that while the Chaplinsky precedent hasn’t yet been struck down, subsequent decisions have drastically narrowed its definition of “fighting words.” In 1971, the court ruled that a vulgar phrase on a jacket didn’t fall within said definition because it was unlikely that any “individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words” to be “a direct personal insult.” In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court struck down a hate-crime statute, decreeing that the state can restrict speech to a certain “time, place, or manner,” but only if those restrictions were “justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.” (I.e., the government can ban flag-burning by, say, banning all outdoor fires in certain areas, but not explicitly because it dishonors the U.S. flag.)